Sio, I want to have a discussion about 9/11/2001; research writings of Dr. Judy Wood

I don't want the discussion to turn into a mud flinging event. But I was talking about it last night (for the ten billionth time) and brought up to someone who is unfamiliar, the research and writings of Dr. Judy Wood.

We have an announcement coming up and also I think this is the proper forum. Thanks, brehm.

EDT TO ADD: If interested at all, I highly recommend the time invested to check out her research. She's highly qualified to make deductive reason and research and what she has to say will blow off your doors. Guaranteed.

~ The towers weren't brought down by planes or by demolition. The buildings were "vaporized" by a free energy weapon that has been in development by the "Star Wars" project for over a 100 years. Whether or not it went awry, or who used it is simply besides the point here though. We're looking here at simply the scientific evidence available. Some of the things she brings up about the event, especially the weather at the time, the aftermath and most importantly, the actual collapse, or in her version "vaporization" of the buildings.
She goes into considerable depth and breadth on the engineering and science involved in her "theory".

I recommend taking a look at her data. While this may sound completely outlandish, there are some interesting points she touches on in her sites presentation of the information.

While this may sound completely outlandish, there are some interesting points she touches on in her sites presentation of the information.

At first glance, she may present some interesting theories there that require further investigation, but there's also a bunch of stuff mixed in there that she presents as supporting that is easily explained - e.g., rapid rusting, vapors from the ground, among others.

As someone who has a PhD in engineering, I've seen a lot of very brilliant engineering students go on to become professors who lack a basic understanding of how everyday things work - they'd be hard pressed to turn a screwdriver in the right direction. I've seen dozens of scholastic presentations with basic critical flaws because they get so wrapped up in their own theories.

When I have more time, I'll take a look at it further, but I'll say that it's going to be hard for me to look at her more "fantastic" theories without a heavy does of skepticism based on her apparent lack of practical knowledge on the rust and vapors. Has she never scene a car fire put out or a piece of iron heated up and dipped in cold water? They rust instantly when exposed to air. Has she never seen a compost pile or fresh moist dirt heated up in the sun? They steam. This is basic stuff

Agreed.Being qualified to discredit her theories, I'm interested on your perspective of some of her points.

Some of the cars and other vehicles that have intense spot burning are what intrigued me the most on her rusting and melting points.The pulverization of most of the building content is also something I've been talking about since 2001....

There are so many rational explanations for many, if not most, of those images. To present these images as any type of evidence along with the questions that she poses suggests a lack of critical thinking, scholastic judgment, and common sense.

Q: Where are the door handles? (asked several times)A: Most door handles are plastic - it makes sense that they'd disappear in a fire

Your picture above caption: Figure 74. Why does this ambulance have melted inside doors? The inside looks to have suffered more heat damage than the outside. What would cause that?A: Geez - IDK - maybe the inside of the ambulance caught on fire from extensive damage to the front or driver's side (not shown in image).

Figure 66(e). Why would the front of this fire truck wilt?A: I didn't you idiot. It got crushed. She seems to discount any possibility that burnt or damaged vehicles were moved away from the scene (towed, dragged, etc.) to provide emergency access. Without a time lapse video or any reference to time and location of picture, many of her statements are just pure speculation.

Figure 66(h). Is there something attractive about engine blocks? Why not gasoline fuel tanks?A: By the picture and color of the smoke, it looks like a rubber fire from the tire and other components under the hood. Who's to say that the engine block is on fire?

Figure 77. The mail truck parked on the left side of the street looks burnt. Why? (Click on photo for enlarged view.) The building on the left is the USPS Federal Building and on the right is WTC7. WTC5 is on fire at the end of the street. Why? If this area is hot enough for spontaneous combustion, why isn't the paper on fire? The cars on the right side of the street are also toasted.A: Again, maybe the burnt postal truck was dragged out of the area to provide access?

I could go on and on, but anyone with some common sense could provide an explanation for much of what is going on in the photos she presents as anomalies to bolster her case. This stuff doesn't exactly pass the smell test (it stinks), much less peer review.

That's not to say that everything she's writing on is bunk, but if you're going to be taken seriously it's going to be harder to find those nuggets of truth amidst a bunch of crap

I could go on and on, but anyone with some common sense could provide an explanation for much of what is going on in the photos she presents as anomalies to bolster her case. This stuff doesn't exactly pass the smell test (it stinks), much less peer review.

That's not to say that everything she's writing on is bunk, but if you're going to be taken seriously it's going to be harder to find those nuggets of truth amidst a bunch of crap

Sean, with your level of common sense, I hadn't guessed that your Phd wasn't a post hole digger.

~ The towers weren't brought down by planes or by demolition. The buildings were "vaporized" by a free energy weapon that has been in development by the "Star Wars" project for over a 100 years. Whether or not it went awry, or who used it is simply besides the point here though. We're looking here at simply the scientific evidence available. Some of the things she brings up about the event, especially the weather at the time, the aftermath and most importantly, the actual collapse, or in her version "vaporization" of the buildings.She goes into considerable depth and breadth on the engineering and science involved in her "theory".

I recommend taking a look at her data. While this may sound completely outlandish, there are some interesting points she touches on in her sites presentation of the information.

OK, so those planes I saw live on TV crashing into the WTC were actually instantly created CGI images then, huh?

There are so many rational explanations for many, if not most, of those images. To present these images as any type of evidence along with the questions that she poses suggests a lack of critical thinking, scholastic judgment, and common sense.

Q: Where are the door handles? (asked several times)A: Most door handles are plastic - it makes sense that they'd disappear in a fire

Your picture above caption: Figure 74. Why does this ambulance have melted inside doors? The inside looks to have suffered more heat damage than the outside. What would cause that?A: Geez - IDK - maybe the inside of the ambulance caught on fire from extensive damage to the front or driver's side (not shown in image).

Figure 66(e). Why would the front of this fire truck wilt?A: I didn't you idiot. It got crushed. She seems to discount any possibility that burnt or damaged vehicles were moved away from the scene (towed, dragged, etc.) to provide emergency access. Without a time lapse video or any reference to time and location of picture, many of her statements are just pure speculation.

Figure 66(h). Is there something attractive about engine blocks? Why not gasoline fuel tanks?A: By the picture and color of the smoke, it looks like a rubber fire from the tire and other components under the hood. Who's to say that the engine block is on fire?

Figure 77. The mail truck parked on the left side of the street looks burnt. Why? (Click on photo for enlarged view.) The building on the left is the USPS Federal Building and on the right is WTC7. WTC5 is on fire at the end of the street. Why? If this area is hot enough for spontaneous combustion, why isn't the paper on fire? The cars on the right side of the street are also toasted.A: Again, maybe the burnt postal truck was dragged out of the area to provide access?

I could go on and on, but anyone with some common sense could provide an explanation for much of what is going on in the photos she presents as anomalies to bolster her case. This stuff doesn't exactly pass the smell test (it stinks), much less peer review.

That's not to say that everything she's writing on is bunk, but if you're going to be taken seriously it's going to be harder to find those nuggets of truth amidst a bunch of crap

February 26, 1993 bombing Main article: 1993 World Trade Center bombingOn February 26, 1993, at 12:17 p.m., a Ryder truck filled with 1,500 pounds (680 kg) of explosives, planted by Ramzi Yousef, detonated in the underground garage of the North Tower.[91] The blast opened a 100 foot (30 m) hole through five sublevels with the greatest damage occurring on levels B1 and B2 and significant structural damage on level B3.[92] Six people were killed and 50,000 other workers and visitors were left gasping for air within the 110 story towers. Many people inside the North Tower were forced to walk down darkened stairwells that contained no emergency lighting, some taking two hours or more to reach safety.[93][94]

Damage underground due to the bombingYousef fled to Pakistan after the bombing but was arrested in Islamabad in February 1995, and was extradited back to the United States to face trial.[95] Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman was convicted in 1996 for involvement in the bombing and other plots.[96] Yousef and Eyad Ismoil were convicted in November 1997 for their carrying out the bombing.[97] Four others had been convicted in May 1994 for their involvement in the 1993 bombing.[98] According to a presiding judge, the conspirators' chief aim at the time of the attack was to destabilize the north tower and send it crashing into the south tower, toppling both landmarks.[99]

Following the bombing, floors that were blown out needed to be repaired to restore the structural support they provided to columns.[100] The slurry wall was in peril following the bombing and loss of the floor slabs that provided lateral support against pressure from Hudson River water on the other side. The refrigeration plant on sublevel B5, which provided air conditioning to the entire World Trade Center complex, was heavily damaged.[101] Subsequent to the bombing, the Port Authority installed photoluminescent markings in the stairwells.[102] The fire alarm system for the entire complex needed to be replaced because critical wiring and signaling in the original system was destroyed.[103] As a memorial to the victims of the bombing of the tower, a reflecting pool was installed with the names of those who had been killed in the blast.[104] However, the memorial was destroyed following the September 11 attacks. A new memorial is planned to be built honoring the victims of the bombing together with the 9/11 attacks on the new World Trade Center site

Perhaps people should wonder why we aren't suing the building contractors for the site? Shoddy workmanship'd

Regarding the whole "freefall" thing on WTC7 and the towers, even with controlled demolition there would be some resistance. In theory. Nobody seems to be able to explain this phenomenon that the conspiracy folks cling to. And they may be right - I don't know. But haven't seen a critical analysis of what we're talking about in terms of a time difference for resistance. I'm sure the skeptics have it somewhere, I just haven't read it or don't remember the difference in time at this point. But realistically, we're talking about fractions of seconds to a few seconds, right? Resistance or not, in a catastrophic collapse we're talking fractions of seconds. It's not like the catastrophic building collapse should have taken tens of seconds longer or even minutes. We're debating a few seconds at most - and the start and end of those seconds is subject to debate depending on how you interpret the video footage.

I'm not saying it doesn't require further explanation (WTC7, in particular), but the whole "free fall" argument is bothersome. People cling to that like it is a magic bullet, when realistically it is fractions of seconds that we're talking about - stuff that can't adequately be captured and analyze from some home video from a quarter mile away.

Sorry - Dr Judy Wood is pretty much a flake in my book. Even if she's got some good theories and stuff somewhere on her site, she's pretty much discredited in my book. This woman has a PhD and was a professor and surely must have published some peer review papers before. Given that, there is no excuse,IMO, for the sloppy shit (as presented above) on that website. Maybe this woman is smart and 9/11 somehow effected her traumatically and she had a mental break? IDK. But I can tell you for sure that if I were to present a pretty groundbreaking theory, that I would keep it clean and concise like I was presenting it to the most respected peer review journals in the world - there wouldn't be a website in my name with all sorts of unsubstantiated, highly speculative, erroneous BS all over it. That's like publishing a critical scientific breakthrough in the middle of National Enquirer - discredited by association and the stupidity of publishing it there.

Perhaps people should wonder why we aren't suing the building contractors for the site? Shoddy workmanship'd

Regarding the whole "freefall" thing on WTC7 and the towers, even with controlled demolition there would be some resistance. In theory. Nobody seems to be able to explain this phenomenon that the conspiracy folks cling to. And they may be right - I don't know. But haven't seen a critical analysis of what we're talking about in terms of a time difference for resistance. I'm sure the skeptics have it somewhere, I just haven't read it or don't remember the difference in time at this point. But realistically, we're talking about fractions of seconds to a few seconds, right? Resistance or not, in a catastrophic collapse we're talking fractions of seconds. It's not like the catastrophic building collapse should have taken tens of seconds longer or even minutes. We're debating a few seconds at most - and the start and end of those seconds is subject to debate depending on how you interpret the video footage.

No. You might want to consider looking into a few actual controlled demo vs. collapse from say, an earthquake or the like. As to my research and knowledge, there is not even ONE known fire related skyscraper collapse ever, any where. Esp. not one that was only blazing for 8 hours?

What about the bombing in 1993? Dont you think if the workmanship was that terrible, the north tower would have caved under that much foundational structural damage at that time?

You are quick to dismiss, yet bring nothing but to the table. I'd love to hear a valid explanation from you. Dr.

Sorry - Dr Judy Wood is pretty much a flake in my book. Even if she's got some good theories and stuff somewhere on her site, she's pretty much discredited in my book. This woman has a PhD and was a professor and surely must have published some peer review papers before. Given that, there is no excuse,IMO, for the sloppy shit (as presented above) on that website. Maybe this woman is smart and 9/11 somehow effected her traumatically and she had a mental break? IDK. But I can tell you for sure that if I were to present a pretty groundbreaking theory, that I would keep it clean and concise like I was presenting it to the most respected peer review journals in the world - there wouldn't be a website in my name with all sorts of unsubstantiated, highly speculative, erroneous BS all over it. That's like publishing a critical scientific breakthrough in the middle of National Enquirer - discredited by association and the stupidity of publishing it there.

I'm beginning to question your scholastics, seany.

As far as some of her questionable stuff, this particular topic is rather difficult to nail anything solid, because the site was off limits and people like Judy were left with very little to work with.Certainly some of main points have credibility. it isnt as though a lot of indepth review was done at the time....swept up and haul off'd.

Your welcome to your opinion. I stand by mine. Any true scholar who wants to present important theories is not going to surround that work with a bunch of crap that can easily be explained away (i.e., the photos). That's not even good journalism, never mind scientific research.

My opinion is that, yes, there are sufficient anomalies to question why these buildings failed so catastrophically - especially WTC7. And we certainly haven't been told the entire truth of what happened that day and probably never will. That said, I find it highly improbable that there is a massive government cover up that involved controlled demolition. An operation like that would require a massive crew of demolition experts and there would be other witnesses. To believe that theory you must also believe that the government then killed all of these experts, installers, and witnesses - it's just highly unlikely that a secret this big could be kept under wraps for 10 years without someone credible coming forward to confess.

So what's the truth? I don't know, but the conspiracy theories that have been floated (that I've reviewed) are no more credible than the simplest explanation - the planes did cause enough damage to cause a catastrophic failure. That's not that implausible from my limited knowledge of the design of the towers. These weren't built old-school with massive amounts of concrete and steel like the Empire State Building or even the Sears tower. They were a relatively lightweight design with a steel skeleton around a flexible, loaded concrete and steel core (around the elevator shafts), relatively thin concrete slabs, and a tempered glass and aluminum exoskeleton. I know some of this because I worked at the wind tunnel lab at Colorado State for 4+ years and they were the ones that initially did the loading and cladding analysis on the towers to refine the design to be flexible under wind loads, earthquakes, etc. That was before my time, obviously, be we did a lot of analysis like that. The models of the towers were still there along with the momentum platform and I read the analysis reports from all those tests to familiarize myself with methods, etc. to apply to other structural cladding and load experiments that we were conducting at the time. Bottom line - the towers were a very innovative design at the time they were constructed. They were designed to be somewhat flexible under extreme wind loads so you didn't have windows popping out and crashing to the ground like the Hancock Tower in Boston. But given that lightweight, flexible design, it's possible, IMO, that if the structural core of the building was damaged that there could be a massive structural failure. It's a fallacy to think that the 4 corners of the building were the main structural supports - they weren't. The towers were designed around a center structural core. Take that out and you've got real problems - probably a failure that would mimic an implosion.

I can't speak to WTC7 - I don't really know anything about the design of that building.

My opinion is that, yes, there are sufficient anomalies to question why these buildings failed so catastrophically - especially WTC7. And we certainly haven't been told the entire truth of what happened that day and probably never will. That said, I find it highly improbable that there is a massive government cover up that involved controlled demolition. An operation like that would require a massive crew of demolition experts and there would be other witnesses. To believe that theory you must also believe that the government then killed all of these experts, installers, and witnesses - it's just highly unlikely that a secret this big could be kept under wraps for 10 years without someone credible coming forward to confess.

So what's the truth? I don't know, but the conspiracy theories that have been floated (that I've reviewed) are no more credible than the simplest explanation - the planes did cause enough damage to cause a catastrophic failure. That's not that implausible from my limited knowledge of the design of the towers. These weren't built old-school with massive amounts of concrete and steel like the Empire State Building or even the Sears tower. They were a relatively lightweight design with a steel skeleton around a flexible, loaded concrete and steel core (around the elevator shafts), relatively thin concrete slabs, and a tempered glass and aluminum exoskeleton. I know some of this because I worked at the wind tunnel lab at Colorado State for 4+ years and they were the ones that initially did the loading and cladding analysis on the towers to refine the design to be flexible under wind loads, earthquakes, etc. That was before my time, obviously, be we did a lot of analysis like that. The models of the towers were still there along with the momentum platform and I read the analysis reports from all those tests to familiarize myself with methods, etc. to apply to other structural cladding and load experiments that we were conducting at the time. Bottom line - the towers were a very innovative design at the time they were constructed. They were designed to be somewhat flexible under extreme wind loads so you didn't have windows popping out and crashing to the ground like the Hancock Tower in Boston. But given that lightweight, flexible design, it's possible, IMO, that if the structural core of the building was damaged that there could be a massive structural failure. It's a fallacy to think that the 4 corners of the building were the main structural supports - they weren't. The towers were designed around a center structural core. Take that out and you've got real problems - probably a failure that would mimic an implosion.I can't speak to WTC7 - I don't really know anything about the design of that building.

I'm not willing to discuss this here. This thread is about "what happened", not "who done it".

Excellent point. I agree. The exterior and 4 corner load for building 1 and 2, werent the central load weight point for the building. These building were designed as you mentioned. However, kinetic energy in play, under the conditions of implosion, would dictate that a "pancaking" could occur OR blow out from floor to floor, but not both. What we see taking place here is both. Further, it is quite impropable that pancaking would occur all the way into the sub-floors. As there were 49 steel I-beams throughout the first 40 floors (its been a while since i reviewed the build, so this may be inaccurate on floor count) in order to allow for wind sway and stability. Looking at all that pulverized material would reduce weight and cause doubts to bending and breaking of these i-beams. At the very least, it should under theory, have toppled sideways from there or stopped. It's just simply flabbergasting to think that any of this would happen under the condiitons presented (that we know of).

Which brings me back around for a 3rd time....how do you explain the pulverization of MOST (literally, percentage unknown as there was no thorough investigation) of the building materials, interior/exterior?

EDIT TO ADD: Seeing how the interior core "tube" was holding so much strucural weight, how come the 1993 bombing, which occured in the core and even damaging the tub, didn't bring the north tower to its knees?

I'm not a structural engineer and can't speak in an expert manner as to the pulverization of materials. I would assume that the pancaking of floors would destroy most of the concrete floors, as they were lightweight by design. But really, I don't know. You've stated that Dr. Wood didn't get to examine the site or materials. And, as I've stated, she's also presented a bunch of erroneous BS around her core, fantastic theory.

I can't explain much of this, structural experts have presented their views, but there are still things that defy a complete explanation. Even if someone brilliant stepped forward and could explain it all, I suspect you'd still have doubts. Fact is, you've latched on to the hypothesis that this cannot be explained so no matter what I say or what anybody else says you are going to have doubts. Admit it. You are never going to accept any explanation for this. Even if someone stepped forward and said, "Yes - we used a fantastic free energy device from outer space to blow up the towers" you wouldn't buy that as a final explanation to put the mystery to rest. If we were ever told the absolute truth about JFK assassination, they're still be doubters. Count yourself among the doubters for 9/11 - it really doesn't matter what evidence comes out, you're inclined to not to accept it. And that's ok - skepticism isn't a bad thing. I don't believe the given stories of the JFK assassination or 9/11 either. But I'm not going to let it get to me to much either. I know government is corrupt and lies and has massive secrets. I'd like to tear it all down and see us build something else that is more transparent that works for the benefit of the people. Maybe that day will come, but history says it's highly doubtful. The best ideas still end up being corrupted in short order...

I'm not a structural engineer and can't speak in an expert manner as to the pulverization of materials. I would assume that the pancaking of floors would destroy most of the concrete floors, as they were lightweight by design. But really, I don't know. You've stated that Dr. Wood didn't get to examine the site or materials. And, as I've stated, she's also presented a bunch of erroneous BS around her core, fantastic theory.

I can't explain much of this, structural experts have presented their views, but there are still things that defy a complete explanation. Even if someone brilliant stepped forward and could explain it all, I suspect you'd still have doubts. Fact is, you've latched on to the hypothesis that this cannot be explained so no matter what I say or what anybody else says you are going to have doubts. Admit it. You are never going to accept any explanation for this. Even if someone stepped forward and said, "Yes - we used a fantastic free energy device from outer space to blow up the towers" you wouldn't buy that as a final explanation to put the mystery to rest. If we were ever told the absolute truth about JFK assassination, they're still be doubters. Count yourself among the doubters for 9/11 - it really doesn't matter what evidence comes out, you're inclined to not to accept it. And that's ok - skepticism isn't a bad thing. I don't believe the given stories of the JFK assassination or 9/11 either. But I'm not going to let it get to me to much either. I know government is corrupt and lies and has massive secrets. I'd like to tear it all down and see us build something else that is more transparent that works for the benefit of the people. Maybe that day will come, but history says it's highly doubtful. The best ideas still end up being corrupted in short order...

Not true, seany. In fact, I only talk about this shit 10 years later because the only thing i am after is the truth. I'm not stupid. Even IF it was a covert ops and someone stepped forward on the "who done it" end, I know full well nothing would change anyway. Things would go on the same as they are now.

I also dont nec. buy any of Dr. Wood's presentation either. But looking at the anomalies surrounding the events of that day, I wont dismiss them either.Frankly, the official story sounds like the conspiracy theory to me. It's completely hollywood fantastical and does not add up. I tend to like to base what I will take as fact off the sciences as we know them. These events defy those sciences.

Again - you are never going to accept any explanation of what happened, no matter how credible. That doesn't make you stupid, it just makes you human. You have doubts and will likely have doubts the rest of your life - no matter what evidence is presented. It's ok.

Not for nothing, and it should seem somewhat trivial given everything that came happened and came from this, but 9/11 is my birthday. To say that is a bummer is an understatement. The Onion summed it up well: http://www.theonion....y-terrorism,60/

Knowing full well that day that we would engage in some senseless wars that would not resolve anything. And that the roots of that attack, no matter how fanatical, were largely from our own failed foreign policies. I wish I still had my e-mails from back then - I wrote some pretty detailed stuff on how it would all play out; 90% of it's come true. Of course, those same e-mails just pissed off my family at the time, who all joined the "USA USA USA" anti-Muslim bandwagon. Some of them have since recanted and admitted that it was all BS and they were sucker'd by the moment.

I don't think we'll ever know the full truth of 9/11 and I'm not going to drive myself nuts expecting it. We still don't know the whole truth on JFK and RFK and likely won't in my lifetime. And even if the truth came out, would we recognize it or accept it? I don't know, but probably not

Even on the very day it happened and my head spun from what my eyes saw...and still to this very day does, I knew that the American public would react badly.

As far as the truth coming out, it most certainly will not matter.
It wouldn't be the first time the American public was hoodwinked into some war that helps fill the pockets of a few, only to get the news 40 years later that the whole thing was a sham. At least with this one we can get back to being sure our science models aren't flawed.....

9/11 = touchy subject in our house. Seany's birthday. And my college roomate is one of the many Cantor Fitzgerald employees that lost their life.

RIP Matty

It's a touchy subject with most people. Hell, I had these types of conversations only with people I knew could handle discussing outside the official story for the first 5 years. Many people to this very day think everything adds up nice and neat, the official story explains it all and our occupation of Iraq (which still makes me considering how obvious it was that there was no relation between A and was a just cause.

10 years later, i can post this here and a discussion can happen without people injecting it with emotion filled rhetoric.

Lastly, to those who lost a loved one, and those who lost their lives...

It was a crappy birthday, for sure. And it's not like I've ever made a big deal out of it - at all. But still, it's 10 years later and half the time that I ever have to present my license at the supermarket to buy beer or confirm my birth date on the phone (e.g. updating my car insurance, student loan payment), I get someone who says, "whoa, 9/11, that sucks...." Yes, thanks for the reminder

It appears that "lasers" are being used already. I would suspect Dr. Judy Wood's assersion that a direct energy weapon involved in 9/11 holds validity. Of course, the gubmint and military certainly aren't going to come forward and say "why yes, of course we have satelitte driven direct energy capabilities."

At first glance, she may present some interesting theories there that require further investigation, but there's also a bunch of stuff mixed in there that she presents as supporting that is easily explained - e.g., rapid rusting, vapors from the ground, among others.

As someone who has a PhD in engineering, I've seen a lot of very brilliant engineering students go on to become professors who lack a basic understanding of how everyday things work - they'd be hard pressed to turn a screwdriver in the right direction. I've seen dozens of scholastic presentations with basic critical flaws because they get so wrapped up in their own theories.

When I have more time, I'll take a look at it further, but I'll say that it's going to be hard for me to look at her more "fantastic" theories without a heavy does of skepticism based on her apparent lack of practical knowledge on the rust and vapors. Has she never scene a car fire put out or a piece of iron heated up and dipped in cold water? They rust instantly when exposed to air. Has she never seen a compost pile or fresh moist dirt heated up in the sun? They steam. This is basic stuff

I bought her book "Where did the Towers go?"Upon recieving it before cracking it open, I emailed Dr. Wood regarding her website. She indicated that the website was merely a filing cabinet and an adhoc insurance policy. As dead people are best at keeping secrets. After opening the book and getting about 1/4 of the way in, the website truly does no justice to her work. Her book, which is beautifully laid out, written and shows a massive 550 pages of her research, is a must read for anyone interested in the science behind the madness. Sad that she had to give up her career due to pressure. Whether you believe her or not, she brings up very critical and interesting points.

Well, since the 9/11 topic is hot over Bin L:aden. I'll revitalize this thread by first starting on the 1,400 toasted cars that appeared during the event of 9/11 from the parking lot on West acroos from the Verizon building, to FDR drive by South Street Sea port, and the testimony of first responders that saw vehicular spontaneous combusiton of a good portion of those vehicles.

EMT Micheal D'Angelo:http://graphics8.nyt...HIC/9110148.PDF....I remember too, the cars started to explode inside the parking lot. I mean, the cars started to cook off, they started going off, boom, boom, boom, boom. I remember that......[/

EMT, Patricia Ondrovichttp://graphics8.nyt....IC/9110048.PDFQ: West Side Highway and Vesey?A: And Vesey, yeah. I was still on Vesey, cause the building that blew up onme was on Vesey, it was on the corner next to the West Side Highway. Cause I know Iwas running west, I didn't run that way. Thank God, I would have been dead had I runthe other way. But I ran towards the West Side Highway, and I kept running up Vesey.As I was running up Vesey, the first car blew up on me on the corner of Vessey and theWest Side Highway. That set my turnout coat on fire, that set my hair on fire, and thatset my feet on fire. I kept running. I got news for you, those turn out coats need to becalled burn out coats, cause this thing caught up in flames. They cut two inches off myhair in less that two minutes, my coat was completely engulfed, and that was the onlyway I could see where I was running at that point, because I had a glow from my coat.

Firefighter James Curranhttp://graphics8.nyt....IC/9110412.PDF.....WE WENT IN THROUGH THE REVOLVING DOORSTHERE WAS A MINI LOBBY THERE WAS LIKE BROWN HAZESMOKE IN THE LOBBY LOT OF THE MARBLE SLABS WEREFALLING OFF THE WALL CRACKED THERE WERE TWO PEOPLEIN LIKE THE LITTLE SECTION OF THIS LOBBY ONE GUY WASBURNT PRETTY MUCH TO CRISP AND HIS JACKET WAS THE ONLY THING LEFT ON HIM PUT THAT OUT WITH A CAN ANDTHEN THERE WAS LADY OFF TO THE RIGHT OF US THAT WASALIVE BUT SHE WAS SCREAMING THAT SHE COULDNT BREATHESO HIT HER WITH THE CAN AND COOLED HER DOWN......

So, how does a man burn to a crisp, yet his jacket is left intact enough for the firefighter to comment on it????

EMT Ronald Coynehttp://graphics8.nyt....IC/9110395.PDFAT THAT POINT I JUST HEARD THUNDEROUSSOUND AND LOOKED UP AND SAW THE BUILDING START TOTOPPLE START TO SWAY AND IT WAS SWAYING OUR WAY ANDWE JUST YELLED RUN AND TRIED TO RUN AS FAST AS WECOULD AND I SAW AN SUV PARKED AND I FIGURED THAT THATWOULD TAKE SOME YOU KNOW SOME OF THE HIT BECAUSE IKNEW COULDNT OUT RUN THE BUILDING AND BY THE TIMEIT TOOK ME TO BREAK THE BACK WINDOW OF THE SUV MYSAFETY COAT WAS ALREADY ON FIRE MY SOCKS WERE ONFIRE WAS ALREADY COVERED WITH SOOT AND ALL SORTS OFPARTICLES THAT WERE COMING OUT OF THE BUILDINGI CLIMBED INTO THE TRUCK AND THATS WHEN PIECES OF THE BUILDING LIFTED THE TRUCK AND CAME THROUGH THE FRONTWINDOW AND FLIPPED THE TRUCK OVER AND WAS TRAPPED INTHERE FOR APPROXIMATELY 25 MINUTES TO HALF HOUR

http://www.liveleak....=1c9_1184090191The link takes you to an interview with a volunteer that talks about the crumpled cars and lack of fires associated with those crumpled cars. I'd embed it if i could.

Firefighter Armando Renohttp://graphics8.nyt....IC/9110448.PDFAlso, Idrove a high-pressure rig and I thought maybe, youknow, it looks like it might be needed because the 80thfloor the plane hit, and the second plane didn't hit atthis time yet, the south tower.I was working by the south bridge. Therewere numerous car fires there. I was located by thesouth bridge and the chauffeur from 1 Engine was withme. There were two lengths of a 2-1/2 inch linestretched off the hydrant there on the south side ofLiberty Street. We were putting out the car fires, orattempting to, and there was no -- the water had noeffect on the car fires at the time. I startedthinking about getting the foam off the rig, and I alsonoticed there were numerous bodies by Cedar Street, andI was thinking of getting the EMS equipment off therig, putting gloves on and starting to get the bodies,putting them in bags.

I'm out of time right now...I'll post more testimony and location, etc.. of these cars that seemed to "blow up" in a while.

Oral testimony of EMT Alan Cooke:http://graphics8.nyt....IC/9110040.PDF....We got to the beginning of the FDR Drive, by the ferry, and i guess because of the way the streets channeled everything, one of the fire balls or whatever, had to have made it as far as south street seaport, because what happened at the time, it seemed like an explosion was coming from there...................Now we had everybody running [to] us from the seaport and running to us from the west side, so we couldnt go either way. That's when all the ash and everything started coming. We had a couple of people stop us because they were complaining of chest pains..........Nobody could breathe and everybody was trying to climb up on to the wall of the FDR Drive.....

Testimony from Firefighter Todd Heaney:http://graphics8.nyt....IC/9110255.PDF....When I got to the front of the building, it tossed rigs down the street like it was--like they were toys. They were upside down on fire.

Firefighter Patrick Connolly:http://graphics8.nyt....IC/9110453.PDFThe only thing I knew, that I wanted to do was I wanted to go back out the door that we came in and make a left turn and walk straight up West Broadway out to safety. They were a little bit more controlled. They decided to stay put about five minutes. And think things through and they were gonna go down. There were some interior stairs and they were gonna go down to probably more like a bomb

shelter area an d I think when Joe looked, it looked like it was destroyed. So we decided that we would tie the search rope off to the doorway and the three of us hand in hand decided that we would walk out. And as we came out we started to walk north and slowly but surely and up and over and under steel and cars were -- cars with tires and cars were popping and they were just starting to light up spontaneously and there was near zero visibility at this stage.

Testimony from Lieutenant Rene Davila

http://graphics8.nyt....IC/9110453.PDF....But we were there. Vehicle 219 was destroyed. Q. Was it on fire? A. What? Q. Was it on fire? A. Fire? We saw the sucker blow up. We heard "Boom!" We were walking up Fulton Street. I don't know how far we made it up when someone says, "The building's coming down." By the time I realized, it's a repeat. .....

Emergency Medical Technician, Renae O'Carroll"http://graphics8.nyt....IC/9110116.PDF....... We went down Atlantic Avenue going towards the Manhattan Bridge, and the heat was so intense, so intense, you could actually feel it while you were up on the bridge. I mean that intense you could feel the heat. Cars were coming this way, and we were driving that way. They assigned us to go to Church and Vesey. We were going towards that area. The cars are coming this way. People are screaming and running, and we're going the opposite direction into the mess, into the belly of the beast of this thing. I still can't believe I had the nerve to do that to this day.......

There is quite a distance between the Manhattan bridge and WTC.....

Q. The building actually came down at that point? A. The building wasn't down yet. I was getting ready to pull out, and the transportation officer waved me over. He wanted to tell me what hospital to go to.......

It was just basically dark. I had never been through anything -- I thought I was dying. The only thing I could see was balls of fire, just balls of fire. At one point I thought I was on fire because it was that close to me. I could feel the heat. I said to myself, wow, I'm on fire. This is what it feels like to be on fire.